In today's PB Post, there is an article about the Lake Worth Tee-Shirt Company and the fact that they will not be leasing at the Casino. The owner withdrew his application from consideration. This company was literally kicked to the curb by the City of Lake Worth and by the majority City Commission of Mayor Pam Triolo, Vice Mayor Scott Maxwell and Commissioner Andy Amoroso.
Mr. Amoroso, a downtown Lake Worth businessman said, "I do not want to lease space to a retailer that will not thrive at the casino...I don't want to set him up for failure." The City had already done that.
Barry Freedman, owner of the Lake Worth Tee-Shop and a businessman for decades, was at our Casino for 26 years. He had the Right of First Refusal on the space. He got pushed around and pushed out by this staff and commission. Don't you think that he, as a businessman, should know whether he can succeed or fail? Don't you think that he has considered all of the factors of the lease including the rental increase? He had agreed to put up six months rent in advance. The City, if they were negotiating in good faith, could have asked for more if they were so concerned.
During the last one to two years, LW Tee was slow to pay its rent. They had no idea even how to buy inventory as they did not know, from one month to the next, whether the casino was going to be demolished, closed, rebuilt or what. He paid all past-dues to the City of Lake Worth. But even his being late during these unreasonable times is not a reason to kick him to the curb.
The City of Lake Worth assured his failure when they pushed him around, taking away the space he originally was going to get and giving it to an anchor restaurant, and pitted an outside company against him on a different space thus increasing the rental amount to $30 per s.f., $5 dollars higher per square foot than Fox Surf, a store there for 28 years selling the same merchandise. The City refused to give exclusives on any merchandise even though Fox wanted thirty exclusives and Barry asked for one. Both stores would be selling much of the same items as they did in the past. Broker Snitkin said, "That raises a red flag with me." The broker, of course, is paid twice the commission on an outside company coming into our casino. That raises a red flag with me, Mr. Snitkin.
Tomorrow night we shall see if the City of Lake Worth honors Rights of First Refusal and keeps the beach a family-friendly place for merchants and consumer alike when they vote on the anchor spaces. We have always said that we want two separate restaurants with two different owners in the anchor area; one upstairs for more sophisticated dining and one on the ground level for everyday beachgoers. Exposure to the city would be highly reduced under these circumstances.
25 comments:
Barry was not given the same opportunity at the same price as Fox. If Barry had been, the Commission on January 17th would have voted 5-0 for Barry to get Unit #6 after it had voted for Fox to get Unit #5. What became the excuses against Barry on January 17th was that he changed the language of Permitted Use that he had under his old lease -- but that position can't hold weight because Fox also changed the language of the Permitted Use that Fox had under its old lease. Therefore, Barry was being treated differently. The Commission also spoke about the Women's Fashion wear Shop offering more per square foot -- but that position does not hold any weight because the Women's Fashionwear wanted either Unit #5 or Unit #6, so if it was a big deal concerning Unit #6 it should also have been a big deal concerning Unit #5. There is simply no logical way to explain what happened at the January 17th meeting other than a bias against Barry being in the Casino.
Barry should have sued
Maybe it was bias against someone that proved they couldn't pay their cheap rent, so how are they going to pay increased rent?
Typical Lake Worth answer. Barry should sue. You are 100% absolutely right. Why doesn't Barry sue? Why didn't Barry's crack attorney recommend he sue the city? Why don't all his supporters pool their financial resources and sue?
Why doesn't Mulvehill or Mcoy start a petition demanding Barry get the space he was contractually promised?
You know why all this won't happen? Because Barry doesn't want everyone to know he can't pay the rent.
Didn't the Commission vote follow the recommendation of Staff and the Leasing Broker?
The Post article is dated 1/26/12 which was last Thursday. The entire exercise with voting again on the leases was to give everyone the same time frame in which to submit their best offer to the city. There were accusations of different treatment, ugly comments from competitors, and proposed rent changes made during the previous meeting. From the beginning STAFF did not recommend LW T-Shirt or NYPD Pizza.
Mr. Freedman could have presented an offer and made his description match the previous lease to the letter. His "right of first refusal" could have been solidified. It is unfortunate he decided to withdraw, but it was HIS decision.
1. The leasing broker gets a 7% commission on a new tenant.
2. How can you make an allegation like that when you have absolutely NO knowledge of what Barry can or cannot pay?
3. Use your own name when making BS posts like this.
4. How come you always are negative on our long term tenants?
5. Barry does have the Right of First Refusal. Does that mean anything to you?
6. Why SHOULD Barry pay $5 more a s.f. than Fox?
7. Why should a bidding war continue on the pizza space? Why should NY Pizza match Mama Mia's and pay $35 a s.f., more than the anchor spot?
THIS ENTIRE MATTER IS INSANE.
The behind the scenes action was terrible on the part of Snitkin and Margoles. I believe Margoles was acting consistent with what Stanton thought and was imprinted into that negativity towards Barry even after Stanton left (by the way, my opinion on the Stanton firing was that it was insane, especially with no plan of succession, and I also feel that Stanton could have been pushed to act more like an Administrator than policy maker). I think Maxwell, Triolo and Amoroso were happy to be rid of Barry and any thought of giving him any benefit of being a long time tenant was an annoyance that they wanted a way around. Looking at how Fox was treated and how Barry was treated at the January 17th Commission meeting tells one all he or she needs to know.
What is lousy about you people taking shots at Suzanne is that she has never talked to her attorney about Barry in any way. She retained him because of the Ramiccio law suit. Suzanne's behavior at the January 17th meeting was totally fair and even-handed. She treated Fox no different than Barry. In fact, she made the Motion to approve Fox and she and McVoy voted unanimously for Fox.
I keep coming back to the fact that there is no logical way for Maxwell, Triolo and Amoroso to explain the difference in their votes concerning Fox on Unit #5 and Barry on Unit #6.
It seems to me that the city dogged the bullet by revoking the lease approval from NYPD Pizza. This whole right of first refusal controversy is getting out of hand. Does staff ever finish its homework completely and on time?
Anon @ 3:29 p.m. - you might want to do a little more homework on the relationship between Mulvehill and Connick. Their relationship goes back to her divorce in 1996 and continues to this day through SMM Associates.
The First Right of Refusal should not be a controversy as you state. It is what it is unless, of course, you are dealing with this commission that does not take any advice from their own attorney.
Stu--And so? She already said that Connick was her attorney.
Exactly when did Mulvehill say that Connick was her attorney? It would be appreciated if you could provide the date of this statement so everyone can drop the topic.
Still waiting for that date when Mulvehill said Connick was her attorney!
Stu--I do not have a date for you but I was sitting in the chamber at a meeting last year when she said it. I don't take notes on those sort of things but will try and find out for you.
Try the audio of October 19, 2011. That might be the one.
What you will find is that Mulvehill admitted to a campaign contribution, but never in the whole series of commission meetings since november ddid she admit that Connick was her attorney for a long periond of time on several matters ranging from her divorse to the Ramiccio lawsuit to a real estate matter in 2011.
That is just flat WRONG. Mulvehill did say that Connick was her attorney. She does not have to say WHY he is her attorney. Because some of you love to hate and love to nit pick, you will find, if you check the audios and find that meeting, that she said Connick was her attorney. GET OVER YOURSELF and the lies here. It will not happen here.
The only reason Barry used Connick as his lawyer was because he was the lawyer that helped ALL the tenants fight Farinelli when he demanded that the building be red tagged and torn down immediately in March of 2008.
Lynn, you keep defending Mulvehill, but cannot give us the exact meeting where the disclosure was made. I want to think this is a non-issue, but no one has provided the proof. I respect that you are loyal to Commissioner Mulvehill, but without proof it is hard to agree.
I would suggest that you listen to the audios relative to the casino leases and find it. It's there. I don't have to do all of the work for you. Once you hear it, tell us all about it, ok?
A question for you Lynn
Do you know which of the merchants was in arrears in their rent?
If your behind for more than 2 mo. would that not negate the right of first refusal?
Thanks for your time
AnnaMaria
AnnaMaria--No, it has nothing to do with Right of First Refusal. Thanks for your question.
Several commissioners and an ex mayor are " Facebook Friends " with LW T shirt owner. Could this be considered close to being the same as receiving political contributions?
Well, no, not any more so than Scott Maxwell being a Friend of Kilwins.
Post a Comment